METE v POLICE [2023] NZHC 138
Because counsel materially erred by failing to make a searching inquiry into whether the appellant should be discharged without conviction before advising the judge to enter convictions, the convictions were quashed for miscarriage of justice and the charges were remitted to the District Court.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] NZHC 138
- Parties
- Appellant: Jaga Kara Karana Hikurangimete; Respondent: New Zealand Police
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 9 February 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / High Court Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; charges remitted to the District Court
- Legal Topics
- Conviction Quashed, Discharge Without Conviction, Counsel Error, Waiver of Privilege, Entry of Plea
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jaga Kara Karana Hikurangimete
Appellant
New Zealand Police
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether convictions should be quashed because counsel failed to make a searching inquiry into grounds for discharge without conviction before convictions were entered
- 2 Whether counsel can continue to act having been a potential witness and having privileged material inspected
- 3 Whether the error requires retrial or other remedy
Ratio Decidendi
Because counsel materially erred by failing to make a searching inquiry into whether the appellant should be discharged without conviction before advising the judge to enter convictions, the convictions were quashed for miscarriage of justice and the charges were remitted to the District Court.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed; charges remitted to the District Court
Orders
- Convictions quashed
- Charges to continue in the District Court
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
METE v POLICE [2023] NZHC 138 [9 February 2023]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROATĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHECRI-2022-404-000288[2023] NZHC 138BETWEEN JAGA KARA KARANA HIKURANGIMETEAppellantAND NEW ZEALAND POLICERespondentHearing: 7 November 2022 and 25 January 2023Counsel: AZ Heyns for AppellantWN Fotherby and CSA Fleury for RespondentJudgment: 9 February 2023JUDGMENT OF DOWNS JThis judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 9 February 2023 at 10.30 am.Registrar/Deputy RegistrarSolicitors/Counsel:Crown Solicitor, Auckland.AZ Heyns, Kaukapakapa.Convictions quashed by consent[1] On 23 May 2022, Jaga Mete entered guilty pleas to two charges: possession ofcannabis for the purpose of supply; and being unlawfully in a building. The Judgeasked Mr Mete's lawyer, Mr Heyns, if he could enter convictions. Mr Heyns said yes.So, convictions were entered by the Judge.[2] Mr Heyns later appreciated there were grounds for arguing Mr Mete should bedischarged without conviction. However, by then of course, convictions had beenentered. Consequently, Mr Mete could not argue he should have been dischargedwithout conviction, as he might otherwise have done.[3] The sequence explains the appeal, which is against conviction, on the basisjustice has miscarried through counsel error.[4] Mr Mete has waived privilege. The respondent has inspected Mr Heyns' file.The respondent acknowledges the appeal should be allowed given Mr Heyns' error:no searching inquiry was made of Mr Mete whether there was a basis for seeking adischarge without conviction before Mr Heyns told the Judge convictions could beentered. Mr Heyns and Mr Mete had "a cursory discussion" about the topic only, notmore.[5] I accept the respondent's concession. It is responsible. Justice has miscarriedthrough error on the part of Mr Heyns.[6] This conclusion says nothing about whether Mr Mete should be dischargedwithout conviction if he again pleads guilty or is found guilty. It holds only there wasmaterial error in relation to the entry of guilty pleas.[7] This leaves one thing. Mr Heyns continues to act for Mr Mete. Ordinarily,counsel may not also be a witness. Very good reasons exist for this rule. Therespondent took no objection, however, provided Mr Mete waived privilege, and itwas able to inspect Mr Heyns' file. As observed, both have happened. Given therespondent's concession the appeal should be allowed, I refrain from requiring othercounsel to act.Result[8] The convictions are quashed. The charges are to continue in the District Court...Downs J